Filed under: Class Readings — kathleenoneill42 @ 2:03 am
If anything can be taken away from the Intro to Mass Communications class it is that Mass Communications, in all forms of medium, are constantly changing and inevitably will always change. People’s needs and wants change with time and therefore what influences their life must be changing as well. New technology opens pathways for new medium while unfortunately leaving others in the dust.
In the past ten years mass communications have changed a great amount and they will only change more in the next ten years. While “older” medium such as paper books and newspapers will never entirely leave our society, “newer” medium such as the internet will soon be more used, if it isn’t already.
In ten years textbooks could be replaced by ebooks. Newspaper routes could be replaced by email alerts. No one can be sure what the future holds for mass communications but there WILL be a change, and evolution. All media is sure to turn toward the digital and electrionic fields. The internet and computers make everything faster and cheaper to keep up with the pace of society. Society won’t be slowing down anytime soon, therefore mass communications won’t either.
In ten years, I’ll be reading books to my children for sure, but I know that my kids will be turning to the internet far before I did. The lessons i learned on the chalkboard my kids will learn on their laptops. There is an obvious difference in technology familiarity between our grandparents and parents and our parents and us. There’s no denying that there will be a difference between us and our children.
Filed under: Class Readings — kathleenoneill42 @ 11:20 pm
Why is EVERYthing a disease anymore? Why is 50 percent of all commercials on TV advertising some new drug to cure some made up disease? And the other 50 percent is about hiring a lawyer to sue a drug company about horrible side effects from one of these drugs? It is not ethical to promote medicine and brainwash Americans into thinking they are not healthy through tv commercials.
Drug comapanies should not be the ones to advertise a drug. Non-profit organizations to fight diseases and professionals should be the only ones to offer advise on drugs. Of course, drug companies could get around it by hiring professionals or hiding behind a non-profit organization like some do, but hopefully it would be able to eliminate a good amount.
There should be a limit put on how drugs can be presented. Asking vague questions and listing common symptoms can only lead to mis-diagnosing oneself. And most of the time the side effects are worse than the actual symptoms!
Many people suffer from the diseases presented by the drug companies on TV, but more don’t than do. Drug companies should not worry about getting their name and product out to the public because if people actually needed something, they would get it. While drugs are made to help people, they can only do harm if they are given to the wrong person. A person could persuade a doctor to give them the prescription or even lie to them based off of what the company describes on the commercials. Diagnosing should be left to the doctors, not the clients.
These companies are obviously very well-off. They need to be able to put the public’s safety before their own financial gain.
Filed under: Class Readings — kathleenoneill42 @ 11:11 pm
If you’ve been following my blogs at all, you can see that I’ve brought up commercials just about everyweek to talk about both the good and the bad that are out there to watch. In class, we discussed advertising in general. From billboards to magazine ads to tv commercials, advertising is a creative and sometimes annoying aspect of mass media. For every hour of television programming shown, at least 15 minutes are commercials. In my recent Cosmo magazine, just about half of the entire magazine was advertisments! I understand that advertising is a necessity for most forms of media because they have no other way to raise enough funds to produce their product. But come on…it does seem to be getting a little bit excessive.
Advertising is starting to have the opposite effect then what it is intended. I find myself being so disgusted with the ads that I ignore them altogether. I completely skip over the ads in Cosmo and flip the station on the radio during the what seems to be half-hour-long commercial breaks. And forget about tv…unless I am dedicated to the program that I’m at the point that I can’t miss a single second, I surf until I see that the show has returned.
I will admit, some ads are quite entertaining and clever, as I have mentioned in the past. There are far too many, however, that are dull and overshown that I can’t sit around the find the good ones. The only time I will ever sit through, and pay attention to, an entire set of commercials is during the SuperBowl, which is what alot of Americans do. Hence, companies pay millions of dollars to post a 30 second ad. Every other commercial break is just an excuse to surf, go to the bathroom, or grab a snack.
Filed under: Class Readings — kathleenoneill42 @ 12:12 am
Public Relations personel and companies are constantly being blamed for using euphemisms in place of plain language in order to make a situation or object sound better. That’s what euphemisms are! The PR’s job is to present a better image of something or someone, so word choice in explainations plays a major role.
I don’t blame PR people for using euphemisms. We use them all the time in everyday conversation!
Some examples of euphemisms utilized by PR people are:
using the ladies’ room=going to the bathroom, passed away=died, sleep together=have sex, unmotivated=lazy
So if we know what the euphemisms actually mean, why do we use them? Sometimes parents use more intricate combinations of words to avoid children understanding the conversation. Sometimes people use different wordings to not hurt someone’s feelings. And sometimes people are just too embarassed to say what they actually mean.
We constantly use euphemisms to avoid saying what we actually mean. Whether it’s for manners (to be polite) or PR reasons, euphemisms are perfectly fine and sometimes necessary. The English language is changing daily; It is the job of every person to “decode” the real meaning behind what someone is saying. The public should not be fooled by flowery language.
Filed under: Class Readings — kathleenoneill42 @ 11:26 pm
So what’s the deal with censorship?
In the United States we have a thing called the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the freedom of religion (and to practice that religion freely), freedom of press, freedom to protest peacfully, and most well-known, the freedom of speech. Anymore it seems as though institutions have been taking the right to free speech away from the American public.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is responsible for tagging films with a letter to “warn” the public of the content. The rating system consists of 5 rankings.
G “General Audiences”- All ages permitted
PG ”Parental Guidance Suggested”- Some material may not be suitable for children
PG-13 “Parents Strongly Cautioned”-Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
R “Restricted”- Under 17 requires accompanying parent or guardian
NC-17 “No Children Under 17″- No one under 17 admitted
This system restricts the quality of language and imaging allowed in each film. Ratings G through R are common. Being slapped with an NC-17 could mean the death of a great film. If the ratings board decides that a movie is NC-17, most studios will not release it until the director has edited it enough to get a R rating. Hundreds of films are changed so they can be released. An NC-17 film would get little, if any, advertising opportunities and therefore would lose out on millions of dollars. Directors and producers have to compromise their art for money.
In This Film is Not Yet Rated, a movie about the MPAA’s rating system, different directors and professionals comment on the controvery of the ratings. First of all, there does not seem to be a complete set of guidelines for making the rating decisions. It’s sketchy as to what is appropriate and what is not. Oppossite sex couples are allowed to be shown doing more sexual activity than same sex couples. The amount of thrusting and f***s can send a film up a level. Secondly, the board of raters is completely unknown. The raters are supposedly “average” American parents looking out for the welfare of the public. Who’s to say what an “average” or “normal” parent is? From the little information discovered, there does not seem to have ever been any gay or lesbian parents on the panel. Race and religion is just as unknown. Basically a minority of the population is making decisions that effect the majority of the public. The public deserves to know who the raters are. I understand that the raters need their confidentiality in order to be saved from bribery or criticism, but giving out statistics of the raters could do no harm. If anything, it would reinforce the public’s confidence in the rating system.
In a democracy it is rare for a government to step in and take part in censoring. For films however, it may be more beneficial than the current sytem. The government would back the First Amendment in every case (except child pornograpgy) and great movies would not be limited to advertising and such because of a certain scene. It would be more of the parents’ responsibility to restrict children, not the theatres and studios. Parent restriction is how it should be. Every parent wants to raise their children differently, therefore they should say what their child can and cannot see-not a board of unknown people.
In order for America to recapture it’s freedoms of speech and expression, the MPAA and rating system need a major makeover.
Filed under: Class Readings — kathleenoneill42 @ 1:45 am
A picture is worth a thousand words. Cliche, but true.
Ever since war photography hit the main media there has been controversy. The argument is whether it is necessary to publish gruesome photos of war in order to portray the real horror, or if words can do the job.
Some people believe that posting images of war can scar people forever. But I believe that people cannot hide behind their ignorance anymore; images of war ARE necessary. A huge percentage of the American population aren’t following the current war we are in. Some don’t think that it’s even a rule war. Well it is, and it’s been a horrid one. While casualities may not be as high as in past wars, the warfare and techniques are much more influential.
The wars in the Middle East are jam-packed with terrorism. American soldiers are being burned and tortured. Journalists are being kidnapped and beheaded. I believe that it is the job of the American media to not only relay the stories, but the photography to back it up. People respond more the pictures. Something about a picture can twist a heart more than text can. We are a visual society, therefore our news should be visual as well.
I understand the concern that parents want to protect the “innocence” of their children; Or that some people aren’t emotionally stable enough to handle the pictures. However, I do believe that the media has been doing a good job of protecting and informing the public, at the same time. Newspapers tend to put the more gruesome war images on the inside pages and warn the reader. News programs wait until later hours to post pictures. But most importantly, most media wait until the family of those in the picture are informed before showing it to the public.
No one is trying to harm anyone by showing images of war. The public needs to know what is going on in order to have a well-informed opinion.
Filed under: Class Readings — kathleenoneill42 @ 1:31 am
Why is it that women constantly seem to be obsessed with their physical appearance?
Magazines have been criticized for promoting unnatural images of women for years now. Photos have been a part of magazines since the 1850s; as of the 1990s, photos have elevated women’s insecurities. Fashion magazines show women who average 5′10” in height and less than 120 pounds in weight. The average woman is 5′ 4” and 144 pounds.
Women need to realize that the images portrayed in magazines are completely rare and most of the time, unhealthy. Some images are completely photo-shopped. Because of the recent controversies over such photos, women have been informed about the truth. However, more influential people, such as teenage girls, don’t listen to the truth. When a teenage girl sees a certain actress or model looking a certain way, they want to copy the style, no matter what. This leads to unhealthy dieting, or worse, not eating at all.
Magazines are starting to crack under the pressure of the criticism and are promising to only show average women. But honestly, how likely is this? Magazines sell based off of the images half the time. Hollywood thrives off of physical appearances and the material world. Everyone knows that Hollywood sells, including magazines.
More importantly however, is it really the magazines’ responsibility to make sure readers don’t try to change who they are? Women should be able to look around them in the world and see that the people on magazine covers are 1 in a million, and not necessarily desirable to everyone. Women, especially in America, need to become comfortable in their own skin.
Filed under: Class Readings — kathleenoneill42 @ 8:41 pm
With all the up-and-coming technology these days, what’s keeping the good ole’ newspaper in style? Most people turn to the radio, television, or internet to gather their news. People anymore read just the bear essentials or what they’re most interested in. As a student, I don’t even have a newspaper readily available every morning. Instead, I go to my internet’s homepage and scroll through the major stories or simply enter a word into “search” to find exactly what I’m are looking for.
Why drive to the store or even walk down your driveway to get the news when you can turn on the computer or television? I know all of this sounds like laziness, but I believe that having the news presented in these new ways is actually beneficial to our society. The average newspaper reader ages over 50. Does that mean that the younger generation has become completely ignorant of today’s breaking news? No, of course not. I believe that the exact opposite is happening. Because the news is more easily obtainable, teenagers and people aging 18-25 are more likely to know what’s going on. People are becoming more aware of national and international news because of its availability. The younger generations relate to new technology, therefore the news has to catch up, and it has. The news has gone through changes in the past to keep up with its ever-changing audience. Techniques such as sensationalism and yellow journalism were used to get more people reading the paper. So what’s the different in using electrionic sources to capture an audience?
I’ve recently joined the campus newspaper here at LVC, La Vie. I full well know that more than half of the kids on campus won’t read this paper, let alone my articles. However, I still believe in newspapers. Even the news that is presented on the internet or T.V. originates at a newspaper publication.
I don’t see the death of newspapers anywhere in the near future. It comes down to personal preference. While some people like reading off of a screen, others enjoy print on paper. Some people find newspapers more convenient and others think the same about computers.
All I have to say……. long live credible and reliable news, in any form!
